On 11.09.2024 14:37, Eric Blake wrote:
On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 07:33:59AM GMT, Eric Blake wrote:
On Tue, Sep 10, 2024 at 03:15:28PM GMT, Pierrick Bouvier wrote:
Signed-off-by: Pierrick Bouvier <pierrick.bouvier@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
A general suggestion for the entire series: please use a commit
message that explains why this is a good idea. Even something as
boiler-plate as "refer to commit XXX for rationale" that can be
copy-pasted into all the other commits is better than nothing,
although a self-contained message is best. Maybe:
This patch is part of a series that moves towards a consistent use of
g_assert_not_reached() rather than an ad hoc mix of different
assertion mechanisms.
Or summarize your cover letter:
Use of assert(false) can trip spurious control flow warnings from some
versions of gcc:
https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/54bb02a6-1b12-460a-97f6-3f478ef766c6@xxxxxxxxxx/
Solve that by unifying the code base on g_assert_not_reached()
instead.
If using g_assert_not_reached() instead of assert(false) silences
the warning about missing return value in such impossible to reach
locations should we also be deleting the now-unnecessary "return"
statements after g_assert_not_reached()?
Thanks,
Maciej
